[G] Shift-click Tip vs. Terran

On March 30 2011 05:27 Vehemus wrote:
I thought everybody did this already.

Well, in this case, thanks for making our wall-building a living hell!

On March 30 2011 05:42 Healedyou wrote:
Yeah thought everyone knew about that. The worker really shouldn't lose its target anyways though.

On March 30 2011 05:48 Zefa wrote:
I love these random tips topics that spring up on TL. I usually get more use out of these posts than most strategy posts.

On March 30 2011 06:19 Jermstuddog wrote:


Fo sho...

Somebody should put together a "collection of useful tips" thread and get it stickied...

I may follow this up with said post if I can find a good way to organize it...

On March 30 2011 07:09 iNbluE wrote:
This is why SC is such a great game... New tricks every week :D Thanks for that, even if I prolly won't be using it too mich since I'm toss

On March 30 2011 07:18 Amui wrote:


Wait....You don't 9 scout as toss to hurt terran econ? Terran LOSES 2 workers for ~40 + seconds if you are good with harassing. esp with shields you can damage and maybe kill 2 scvs

On March 30 2011 06:45 Pokebunny wrote:
PLEASE DO NOT

On March 30 2011 07:51 Rorschach wrote:
Too bad this doesn't work with extractor/drone steal trick as I tried out... I guess when the Drone changes to a building and back it won't follow the queued command....

On March 30 2011 08:27 TiBe wrote:
LOL this is so awesome.. I think blizz will patch as it does with all the cool tricks :-(

On March 30 2011 08:58 SpaceGhost wrote:
you can actually just a-move your worker near the building scv and he'll attack it :3

you can actually just a-move your worker near the building scv and he'll attack it :3

On March 30 2011 09:17 GinDo wrote:
Now Blizzard can reverse the Bunker nerf.

On March 30 2011 09:54 World_Ender wrote:

YA RLY. Blizzard can also require an scv to build Orbital, and addons, and make scv's build thors again. Just so people can use this trick and harass our poor scv's : (

On March 30 2011 13:43 EonShiKeno wrote:
Nice find! Poor Terran

On March 30 2011 17:42 MuffinCookie wrote:
I CAN DELAY THE FIRST BARRACKS. OH YEAH!

In all seriousness though, this is very good new discovery, and I shall forever use it against the enemy workers.

Maybe because of this, there will be other shift-click discoveries! Awesome!

On March 30 2011 17:33 Malminos wrote:
As a zerg player, I approve this tactic.

As for the above comment about this being a bug, if I may be so bold I wish to disagree. Bunkers can already be salvaged but to be unable to kill the scv building the free bunker would just be plain silly. Terran exist to be harassed.

That is all.

On March 30 2011 06:42 RukKus wrote:
I'll be the downer of the thread.... screw you all who do this! No, seriously (I am allowed an opinion). It hurts as it is to pull 1-2 SCV to defend, even then losing my building SCV. I don't understand the balance-related thought that went into this. "Protoss and Zerg buildings can build fine, but let's make it possible for Terran's buildings to stop constructing halfway through!"

Why can't we target the little floating ovarie inside Zerg buildings, or somehow interfere with the warping transportation sequence of a protoss building?

sadface

EDIT: And don't tell me "Oh yea? Well protoss buildings need a pylon! And Zerg needs creep!" Because you're right and I won't listen to you I'll just turn my music up louder because I'm only writing all of this because I needed to rant, and killing my constructing SCV delays my whole build 5-10 seconds and thus is potentially game changing. So there. Screw you. Okay bye

NINJA DOUBLE EDIT: And whatever you do, don't pull more than one worker to harass early on against constructing SCV, because Terran is only 45hp away from a completely delated build order when you kill that first SCV! That would be too imbalanced so you should probably stick to a macro game and I promise you (not speaking for other Terrans) not to bunker rush you. Deal? Okay. Have a [not] nice day.

On March 30 2011 22:56 Dommk wrote:
edit: Whoops, nevermind -.-"

On March 30 2011 23:01 TimeSpiral wrote:


Ha ... Did you test it?

I am in the process of reporting this bug now. Ha.

On March 30 2011 23:19 Dommk wrote:

Yeah -.-

But, still don't see how that is a bad thing, Every race has its pros and cons, sure Terran buildings can be halted mid construction via killing the SCV, but they can also fly and be repaired

On March 30 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:
I will be reporting this as a bug!
============================

The SCV Wandering purposefully negates an attack command to help protect the SCV while it is constructing a building. Maybe it simulates the fact that it's working in a freaking building, and there are lots of places to run around in there, or maybe it's simply Blizzard saying "you cannot just a+click a worker and stop a building from being constructed."

Just like the Patrol Flowers, shift clicking on SCVs constructing buildings is bugged and should be fixed. It's bad enough that Terran is the only race that can have a building halted in mid construction.

Terran fellows - on to battle.net, now, and report this as a bug.

On March 30 2011 23:23 Scrubington wrote:


You mad bro? Flying buildings that can be repaired, fly, and be lowered in exchange for being halted a couple of seconds...

It's like you forget that your opponent is losing minerals pulling workers to attempt to halt your building construction.

Report this as a bug all you want, but the fact of the matter is this is working as intended and you know it.

On March 30 2011 23:37 TimeSpiral wrote:


Read the thread, "brah."

On March 30 2011 23:47 Scrubington wrote:


I've read the entire thread, what are you getting at?

On March 30 2011 23:21 TimeSpiral wrote:

I'm not saying the SCV should be invulnerable. I'm saying that shift a+clicking a wandering SCV is a bug and should be fixed. You can still kill the SCV.

On March 30 2011 23:21 TimeSpiral wrote:


I'm not saying the SCV should be invulnerable. I'm saying that shift a+clicking a wandering SCV is a bug and should be fixed. You can still kill the SCV.

On March 30 2011 23:53 TimeSpiral wrote:


Read again, maybe?



Also, it kinda sounds to me like you're only talking about bunker rushes ... Otherwise, why on earth would you be pulling workers to attack an SCV building a rax or supply depot

See, bunkers in proxy locations are not the only buildings that a Terran needs to construct

On March 31 2011 00:01 GreEny K wrote:
I just shift A-click the worker constructing the bunker or building... Thought this was common knoweledge already

On March 30 2011 23:37 TimeSpiral wrote:


Read the thread, "brah."

On March 31 2011 00:04 Scrubington wrote:


The average person A-moves when they're close to the SCV. This of course is less than ideal since the AI idles your attacking worker once the SCV moves do the opposite side of the barracks or a second SCV attacks your attacking worker.

On March 31 2011 00:06 GreEny K wrote:


That may be, but I'm talking about shift Attack and then click on the worker. It works, and it doesn't stop attacking until it kills the SCV.

On March 30 2011 23:22 Scrubington wrote:
I can just picture the great big rage face every single Terran player is making.

On March 31 2011 00:11 canikizu wrote:
I never have problem with targeting scvs before, maybe because I ususally a-click on the ground near the rax, bunker that the scv is building, so it always targets the unit near there, which is the scv. Nevertheless, this seems like a cool trick.

On March 30 2011 23:58 Scrubington wrote:


You're getting off-topic. My point is shift-A clicking an SCV repeatedly is obviously working as intended. That is all. If you give me one legitimate reason why queuing up attacks is a bug I might change my mind.

EDIT: I find it both odd and insulting that you make the assumption I haven't read the thread. In the future try not to be an asshole.

On March 31 2011 00:05 GreEny K wrote:


So what's your problem? Theres nothing in the thread that would support your view... Also, keep the red out of your posts, admins use red for warnings and bans and mod edits.

On March 31 2011 00:35 TimeSpiral wrote:


I apologize if I offended you.

I assumed you did not read the whole thread because I listed a very specific reason why I felt this was a bug and you started talking about Terran building attributes (flying, repair, SD raise/lower, etc) and appeared to be talking exclusively about bunker rushing.

Reason (1): An attack command is canceled when the SCV wanders during building construction. I'm arguing this is a purposeful attribute of the SCV's construction routine.

Let's say the SCV has four construction locations (a), (b), (c), and (d). Issuing the attack command while at station (a) attacks the SCV at station (a). That attack command is no longer valid once the SCV moves to a different station.

Shift-queuing the attack command on the SCV would issue: Attack SCV at station (a)*number of commands queued. Once the SCV wanders to a different station any queued attack commands become invalid because they were all queued at station (a).

That's my logic. It may or may not be correct, but I'm not just saying "bah! BS! No Way!" I'm clearly operating off what I believe to be bugged game-logic. Similar to the Patrol Flower. Clearly air units can stack, so why not be able to stack them on top of each other? Because that is not how Blizzard intended that mechanic to work/be used.



Hwat do you mean?

I used red to express my headline. TL intends for us to format our posts, and even offers instructions on how to use the various colors. If red was reserved, they could simply reserve that tag, similar to the HTML tags.

If you're wondering why as referenced the thread see my response above to that poster. I will admit I was urked by the l2p-ish "umad bro" which just wreaks of prepubescent antagonizing.

I also admit that I am using these colors to screw with you. I apologize

On March 31 2011 00:38 Scrubington wrote:


WHAT a guy.

On March 31 2011 00:40 Synystyr wrote:
Here's my input into this little debate...

I am siding with TimeSpiral that this is a bug. It necessitates that at least two SCVs are pulled to deal with the harassing worker. This is because if the enemy worker gets the first hit on the SCV that's building, it is guaranteed a kill even if it's under attack by another SCV. You either need to pause construction to have two SCVs to attack the worker (which can just kite away), or you have to pull a second worker off to attack, thus losing mining time (worker can also kite again).

This completely nullifies the reason that Terran have 11 supply with the CC, because that extra supply gives you an extra worker that makes up for the SCV constructing your buildings. By having to use at least two SCVs to defend harass, you already start accumulating an economic disadvantage that no other race has to deal with and thus makes this imbalanced and a bug.

On March 31 2011 00:43 Scrubington wrote:


Friend, this is not a debate on simply attacking a building worker. It's a debate on shit-A clicking on the building SCV multiple times.

On March 31 2011 00:47 Synystyr wrote:
Shift-A clicking is unnecessary.

On March 31 2011 00:38 Scrubington wrote:


WHAT a guy.

EDIT: Your logic is flawed.

Issuing an attack command on the same SCV multiple times logically should override the any AI. User input > AI. Makes sense, not a bug. Guarantee you it's working as intended, it's been that way since alpha.

On March 31 2011 00:43 Scrubington wrote:


Friend, this is not a debate on simply attacking a building worker. It's a debate on shit-A clicking on the building SCV multiple times.

Again, it's not a debate on if Terran needing to pull additional workers is balanced or not.

We're discussing whether or not this particular game mechanic is intended or a slight bug.

On March 31 2011 00:41 TimeSpiral wrote:


Too much? lol. Come on, guys. Lighten up.

Seriously though, do you disagree with my reasoning? You did ask for an elaboration.

On March 31 2011 00:49 TimeSpiral wrote:


Your statement does not address my logic.

Can you name another instance where shift-queuing identical commands is valid?

On March 31 2011 00:49 Scrubington wrote:


Most Tricks are "unnecessary".

On March 31 2011 00:58 Synystyr wrote:


Somehow, I knew you'd single out that one word =\

I wouldn't classify this as a trick as much as I would an abuse of shift commands. I boggles me as to why you can't see this as a bug.

When you issue the attack command directly onto the SCV, the worker you use never loses it's target, it is always in "attack mode". Shift queue commands work after they finish the first command they were issued. In this situation, the command the worker was given was never finished. The queue says to attack this worker until it dies, and then do its next command. This command was never finished and is bugged because the worker can repath to attack the worker, rather than follow the path it was given initially.

On March 31 2011 00:58 Synystyr wrote:


Somehow, I knew you'd single out that one word =\

I wouldn't classify this as a trick as much as I would an abuse of shift commands. I boggles me as to why you can't see this as a bug.

When you issue the attack command directly onto the SCV, the worker you use never loses it's target, it is always in "attack mode". Shift queue commands work after they finish the first command they were issued. In this situation, the command the worker was given was never finished. The queue says to attack this worker until it dies, and then do its next command. This command was never finished and is bugged because the worker can repath to attack the worker, rather than follow the path it was given initially.

On March 31 2011 00:58 Scrubington wrote:


Let me just say that I fully understand what your point is. Although there isn't another instance in which queuing up perfectly identical commands (eg. attack X unit 10 times) is viable the feature is still in the game.

You can set a unit to "Move" in spot 50 times via shit-queue technique if you want, so why shouldn't you be able to set a unit to attack one unit 50 times?

On March 31 2011 01:16 Albrithe wrote:

This is a quote from the OP. If what I bolded is operating as intended by Blizzard, then the shift queuing makes sense (read: isn't a bug). When the SCV moves, the worker attacking it loses whatever command you gave it. So it cancels that attack command, and moves onto the next attack command.

Personally, I am not confident enough in my play to try this worker harass, but if it's as easy as shift queuing then I think I may start. Thanks OP.

On March 31 2011 00:49 TimeSpiral wrote:
The way it works now is such that your attack command is canceled after the SCV wanders. This is purposefully designed to help protect the SCV and give you a chance to respond. Shift clicking the attack command is bugged because you're essentially just issuing the same command multiple times.

On March 31 2011 01:40 Hairy wrote:

Says who? Says you?

The core of this whole debate rests upon whether or not Blizzard is happy with the current SCV targetting behaviour, and there's simply no way of knowing without asking them. Who knows if it's intentional (or desirable, in Blizzard's eyes) or not.

Melee units attacking a SCV building will go attack something else (or idle, in the case of workers) when the SCV moves. Is this intentional? Perhaps. Personally I think it's simply an artifact of the way the AI has been programmed, as melee can't reach the SCV unless it's near the edge; "I can't reach that SCV right now, so I'll cancel my attack command".

Perhaps a way to test if this is intentional would be to tell a RANGED unit to attack a building SCV and see what happens. If this targetting behaviour were really "to help protect the SCV and give you a chance to respond" we'd expect to see the exact same un-targetting behaviour in something like a marine.

On March 30 2011 05:45 lorkac wrote:
The SCV union hates you. You are now right below mutalisks and blueflame hellions as most hated.

On March 31 2011 01:40 Hairy wrote:

Says who? Says you?

The core of this whole debate rests upon whether or not Blizzard is happy with the current SCV targetting behaviour, and there's simply no way of knowing without asking them. Who knows if it's intentional (or desirable, in Blizzard's eyes) or not.

Melee units attacking a SCV building will go attack something else (or idle, in the case of workers) when the SCV moves. Is this intentional? Perhaps. Personally I think it's simply an artifact of the way the AI has been programmed, as melee can't reach the SCV unless it's near the edge; "I can't reach that SCV right now, so I'll cancel my attack command".

Perhaps a way to test if this is intentional would be to tell a RANGED unit to attack a building SCV and see what happens. If this targetting behaviour were really "to help protect the SCV and give you a chance to respond" we'd expect to see the exact same un-targetting behaviour in something like a marine.

On March 31 2011 01:36 TimeSpiral wrote:


The unit doesn't "forget." The attack command is canceled specifically.

Read the logic like this:

• Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• IF SCV (ID:1) wanders THEN cancel Attack SCV (ID:1) command ELSE satisfy attack command
  

Now, for the bugged logic

• Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• IF SCV (ID:1) wanders THEN cancel Attack SCV (ID:1) command ELSE satisfy attack command
  
  • The moment this conditional statement registers as TRUE then all instances of "Attack SCV (ID:1)" should be canceled because they are identical.
    
  
  

The logic is bugged and only the first instance of "Attack SCV (ID:1)" is canceled when in reality those redundant commands should not even be allowed to queue, and even if they are supposed to be allowed, since the command is canceled all identical instances should be canceled.

On March 31 2011 01:40 Hairy wrote:
Personally I think it's simply an artifact of the way the AI has been programmed, as melee can't reach the SCV unless it's near the edge; "I can't reach that SCV right now, so I'll cancel my attack command".

On March 31 2011 01:00 tsuxiit wrote:
Oh my god. Thank you. THANK YOU.

This is going to save me so many broken keyboard ragequits.

On March 31 2011 02:01 abominable wrote:
what's the big deal?

anyone with >20 apm could micro their worker to continue attacking the scv builder.

On March 31 2011 01:56 Albrithe wrote:


Sorry, I don't think I follow. Is this real game code? I don't see how canceling the attack command would cancel all attack commands queued. It may be my understanding of the way the game code works, but let me try an example.
I'm scouting the enemy's base on Steppes of War. I do a bunch of shift movement commands so I can go build a pylon in my base. However, in my hastiness I do one command behind his minerals, one off the map slightly, and the next back onto the map so that he travels along behind the mineral patch. My probe will go to the first command, then not be able to actually go to the location of the second command, so he moves onto the third command. Like I said, I very well may be stepping on my own dick here, but I don't see how these are different.

edit:
yeah, this is what I assumed.

On March 31 2011 01:52 TimeSpiral wrote:
Yes, says me, as I'm stating my argument.

If I'm wrong, then so be it. I have reported to the alleged bug to Blizzard and am awaiting a response.

I like your test, but I think there is a fundamental difference between a ranged unit and a melee unit, and even more so for a worker

so if one of those commands is canceled, by virtue of them being identical, all of them should be canceled.

On March 31 2011 02:07 Synystyr wrote:


Because when a worker comes to stop the harass, you won't be able to kill the building SCV because targetting becomes impossible when the SCV is practically inside the building, not to mention that the attacking worker will most likely die to the defending worker in the process.

Doing this is guarenteed damage. The defender either loses his worker or forces at least two SCVs to deal with the harass, which either loses mining time or construction time. All these little things matter in the early game.

On March 31 2011 02:13 Hairy wrote:

That's fine - the issue I have is that you're stating your opinion as fact. You have no evidence to support your claim that blizzard intentionally coded this to help protect SCVs while building. It's plausable, sure, but there's no way to prove that's the case until we hear something from Blizzard. It may well be the case that ALL of the current behaviour is exactly as they intended.

It would be equally valid to assume that units ceasing their attack on a building SCV when it moves is unintended behaviour, and THAT is the bug. Perhaps what should be happening is that when I tell my zergling/drone to attack your SCV it does so until that SCV dies.

Agreed. However, if a marine were to un-target a building SCV then that would be pretty good evidence in your favour.

On March 31 2011 01:36 TimeSpiral wrote:


The unit doesn't "forget." The attack command is canceled specifically.

Read the logic like this:

• Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• IF SCV (ID:1) wanders THEN cancel Attack SCV (ID:1) command ELSE satisfy attack command
  

Now, for the bugged logic

• Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• SHIFT + Attack SCV (ID:1)
  
• IF SCV (ID:1) wanders THEN cancel Attack SCV (ID:1) command ELSE satisfy attack command
  
  • The moment this conditional statement registers as TRUE then all instances of "Attack SCV (ID:1)" should be canceled because they are identical.
    
  
  

The logic is bugged and only the first instance of "Attack SCV (ID:1)" is canceled when in reality those redundant commands should not even be allowed to queue, and even if they are supposed to be allowed, since the command is canceled all identical instances should be canceled.

On March 31 2011 05:42 dAko wrote:
Nice find, just killed my first rax building scv without even looking at it :>

On March 30 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:
I will be reporting this as a bug!
============================

The SCV Wandering purposefully negates an attack command to help protect the SCV while it is constructing a building. Maybe it simulates the fact that it's working in a freaking building, and there are lots of places to run around in there, or maybe it's simply Blizzard saying "you cannot just a+click a worker and stop a building from being constructed."

Just like the Patrol Flowers, shift clicking on SCVs constructing buildings is bugged and should be fixed. It's bad enough that Terran is the only race that can have a building halted in mid construction.

Terran fellows - on to battle.net, now, and report this as a bug.

On March 31 2011 08:10 iChau wrote:
You don't actually have to say that he's a whiner. That's just an insult, and is very immature.

On March 31 2011 09:10 Albrithe wrote:

TL should implement something similar to Facebook's "Like" feature for posts like this, as I have nothing constructive to add but I simply agree. Name calling is not only pointless, but an argumentative fallacy!
The rest of your post is solid and I agree with it though.

On March 31 2011 09:51 TimeSpiral wrote:
If it is working as intended, I will be wrong.

Pretty simple :D

On March 31 2011 10:47 Omni17 wrote:


Gl, hf may the best argument win

On March 31 2011 18:18 covetousrat wrote:
Thanks dude. One of the best tips I have read. Funny thing is after 2-3k games played, I still do not realise this trick. A must know.

On March 31 2011 08:12 Kiarip wrote:
Well what do you call someone who logs onto TL looks at a topic and says:
"Oh no! they found a trick that works only solely against my race. Lets find a way to describe it such as to make it appear as if it was illegitimate bug-abuse."

On March 30 2011 23:22 Scrubington wrote:
I can just picture the great big rage face every single Terran player is making.

On April 04 2011 11:57 MutatedMiracle wrote:
This helped me a lot. =D Thank you!

On March 30 2011 06:45 Pokebunny wrote:
PLEASE DO NOT

On April 04 2011 23:04 Noxie wrote:
Feels like everyone does this haha.

Ugh.. how I hate the fact that scv's expose themselves as they build.

On April 04 2011 15:12 Omni17 wrote:

No problem, the whole world must learn of this!!!

On April 05 2011 04:21 youj3an wrote:
I personally find it humorous how some of the members here are using their own interpretation of the game's mechanics to their argument's advantage. There is no "evidence" that you have compiled. This is just how you think the game's mechanics function.

Nice find, OP. =)

On April 05 2011 13:36 Chronopolis wrote:
Thanks! Much appreciated vs those 1 rax into 2 rax bunker rushes.

On April 05 2011 12:14 Sadistx wrote:
Dear races with HP regenerating workers:

Fuck off.

Kindly yours,

- Terrans.

On March 30 2011 05:13 World_Ender wrote:
Great, another way to annoy the hell out of all terran players. Hands off my bunker rushing SCV!

edit: lol I just tried this in a TvT and felt spectacular thx for the trick

On April 07 2011 09:31 GhettoSheep wrote:



SCVs dont harass other SCVs man...

On April 08 2011 09:21 Rampager wrote:
I had no idea you could do this, and i've been playing the game since beta.

/Stealing